On 28 Sep 2005, at 14:48, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:
[snip lots of interesting stuff, to get to later]
Note that the first two entries share the same value of atom:updated,
this is a SHOULD-Level violation of section 4.1.1. I think the spec
should allow multiple entries with the same timesta
Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:
>I'm trying to implement Atom support for KnoBot [1], the KnoBot CMS
>supports entries and feeds in multiple language with http-language
>negotiation.
>
>Reading the spec I'm not sure how an entry should be described in
>multiple language, more specifically how updates o
Hi Alan,
Probably the closest thing to what you want is this proposal:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-
history-04.txt
It has "previous", but not "next".
Cheers,
On 03/10/2005, at 1:27 PM, Alan Gutierrez wrote:
What is the proper way to indicate
Mark Nottingham wrote:
Probably the closest thing to what you want is this proposal:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-
history-04.txt
It has "previous", but not "next".
It just occurred to me when reading this message that there may be some
advantages to
On 04/10/2005, at 7:07 PM, James Holderness wrote:
But isn't it at least worth mentioning something about this under
"Security Considerations"?
Good point; I'll try to come up with some text.
Also, a minor point I noticed while reading the draft: the
namespace prefix you use in most of t
